Not only he. There are problems with defining Proto-Indo-European. The most logical definition would be: it is the proto-language which links India and Europe. There is only one language which fits this definition. It is Indo-Slavic, i.e. the language from which Baltic, Slavic and Indo-Iranian languages originated and were spoken in India and Europe. This language correlates well with R1a-Z645 expansion. Germanic tribes didn’t have contacts with Indo-Iranians. They had contacts with Slavs, but Germanic scholars don’t want to admit it.

Listen to what top Germanic scholar Guus Kroonen is saying:

“Slavs were barbarians to Germanic people…You don’t borrow from barbarians, that’s the rule.”

This is why proto-Germanic is based on some BS reconstructions from some BS PIE language which never existed and never was spoken by anybody.March 1, 2017 at 12:07 PM

Back in 2015, Allentoft et al. published four Afanasievo genomes that finally confirmed beyond any doubt that the enigmatic Afanasievo people were migrants to the Altai region from Eastern Europe.

However, all four samples came from female remains, which left us wondering about the Y-haplogroup composition of the Afanasievo population. As it turns out, a French study from 2014 found that three Afanasievo individuals belonged to R1b, with two classified as R1b-M269 (see here).

There’s nothing remarkable (???!!! Dawidski nagle zgłupiał, albo nie chce przyznać, że to jest bardzo ważne???!!!) about this, considering that the above mentioned four Afanasievo samples look essentially identical to M269-rich eastern Yamnaya samples from Kalmykia and Samara in terms of genome-wide genetic structure (for instance, see here). But it’s a useful bit of info that has somehow eluded us all until now. Thanks to Kristiina for the find

EastPole said…Yamnaya was exclusively R1b, now we see the same with Afanasievo – only R1b. This suggests that as early as 3500 BC or earlier there were two distinct groups on the steppe, R1b and R1a dominated, which didn’t mix because probably spoke very different languages, had different religions and cultures.March 1, 2017 at 3:56 AM

Davidski said…Yamnaya was exclusively R1b. Might be useful not to get too dogmatic about this, until we see samples from more western Yamnaya sites, especially in what was Dnieper-Donets territory, where Neolithic R1a has already been found.
March 1, 2017 at 4:15 AM Czytaj dalej →

Anyone who still thinks that Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a originated in South Asia should burn this map into their brains. It’ll come in useful over the next few years as we learn from ancient DNA about the conquest of the Indian subcontinent, and indeed much of Asia, by pastoralists from the western Russian and Ukrainian steppes.

X marks the spot of the burial site of Poltavka sample I0432 from the Mathieson et al. 2015 dataset. This individual belongs to Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a-Z93(Z94+), which today accounts for well over 90% of the R1a lineages in Asia and peaks in frequency at over 60% in the northern parts of South Asia.

Moreover, the dating of his burial site, 2925-2536 calBCE, suggests that he lived not long after the Z93 and Z94 mutations came into existence. That’s because Z93 doesn’t appear to be much older than 5,000 years based on full Y-chromosome sequence data (see here and here, including the comments).

So I0432 could well turn out to be a crucial piece in the puzzle of the peopling of South Asia.

Interestingly, this individual was flagged as an outlier in the Poltavka sample set by Mathieson et al., hence his other moniker: the Poltavka outlier. However, this wasn’t because of any ancestry from South or even Central Asia. In fact, it was because he was too western.

Principal Component Analyses (PCA) featuring a wide range of present-day and ancient samples from Europe and Asia, like the one below, show that Poltavka outlier clusters further west than most Corded Ware individuals from Germany. Right click and open in a new tab to view full size.

In the past, using qpAdm, I modeled Poltavka outlier as 63.7% Yamnaya Samara and 36.3% German Middle Neolithic. This is probably not very far from the truth, but qpAdm offers a supervised mixture test in which the results are heavily reliant on the choice of outgroups, so I thought I’d revisit the issue with TreeMix, which allows an unsupervised analysis.

In a dataset including seven relatively high coverage Copper Age (CA), Early Bronze Age and Middle Neolithic (MN) European genomes, TreeMix picked out Poltavka outlier as the most likely sample to be admixed, showing a mixture edge of 33% from the base of the branch leading to the Iberian MN individual to that of Poltavka outlier.

This outcome is very similar to my qpAdm model, but it suggests an even more western source of admixture in Poltavka outlier. Could this admixture actually be from Iberia? I wouldn’t discount this possibility, considering the presence of Bell Beaker communities, possibly of Atlantic or even Iberian origin, as far east as present-day Poland. Indeed, according to Cassidy et al. 2015, German Beakers show high affinity to MN and CA Iberians (see page 51 in the supp info here).

I double checked my TreeMix result with D-stats, and yep, when placed in a clade with Poltavka or Samara Yamnaya, Poltavka outlier shows the strongest signal of admixture from the Iberia MN individual.

At the same time, however, the signal from the Early Neolithic (EN) Iberian fails to reach significance (Z=<3), which suggests that, in fact, TreeMix and D-stats might be seeing the Iberia MN sample as the most attractive mixture source due to her high level of Western European hunter-gatherer (WHG) ancestry, which Poltavka outlier also has plenty of, rather than anything specific to Iberia.

In any case, it’s clear enough that Poltavka outlier was the result of mixture between Yamnaya-related western steppe pastoralists and the descendants of Middle Neolithic Europeans with a high ratio of WHG ancestry. Where this admixture actually took place and which archaeological cultures were involved will have to be resolved with further sampling of ancient remains from Central and Eastern Europe.

However, it’s already impossible to place the origin of Poltavka outlier anywhere in Asia, which suggests that both Z93 and Z94 are also from well inside the generally accepted borders of Europe.

This obviously has implications for the origins of the Indo-Iranians, because the widespread presence of these mutations in Asia gels very nicely with the idea, and indeed academic consensus, that Indo-Iranian languages expanded rapidly from the Eurasian steppe into Asia during the Bronze Age.

Considering that Poltavka outlier came from a Kurgan burial, and was therefore an individual of some social standing, he might be the direct ancestor of many millions of present-day Asians. If so, this won’t be very difficult to prove in the near future as ancient DNA research revs up a few notches.

On a related note, apparently there’s a paper on the way with ancient DNA results from Rakhigarhi, a Harappan site in Haryana, northern India (see here). As far as I know, the results will include Y-chromosome haplogroups of three males, but I don’t think we’ll see any decent genome-wide data at this stage. However, hopefully I’m wrong and the paper will come out with full ancient genomes.

Feel free to post your predictions in the comments. I’m tentatively expecting a couple of instances of J2 and maybe an L or H. Razib made basically the same prediction recently so I’m not being original. What I do know is that we won’t see any R1a-Z93. The only way that might happen is if, say, someone coughed or sneezed on the Harappan remains.

Rob said…
It’s a shame people turn what is a fascinating question about a linguistic phenomenon dispersed through various prehistoric group into perceived relativity to modern or near-modern social phenomena. The two should be divorced. There is little doubt that major transformations occurred in central Asia between 20000 BC and 1600 BC. These coincide with the appearance of the Sintashta and Andronovo sites further north. That during periods of shift and population decline (eg in the Indu valley), new groups can gain dominance. Looking at the ancient Z93 samples we have, and the phylogeny of Z282, it looks to be from EE/ Russia. However, factoring confidence intervals of fully-sequenced modern samples, Z645 could be as old as 6, 600 Y BP (4, 600 BC).
On the other hand, there are predictions that central Asian groups in the Copper Age lacked or had little ASI, which would bring them close to the admixture seen in Yamnaya, perhaps much closer than Kotias. If so, these people appear to have had a major demographic impact throughout Eurasia.
January 11, 2016 at 11:37 PM

Davidski said…
There won’t be anything all that interesting in ancient Central Asia, at least not in the context of the Indo-European expansions. Mostly just extinct ghost populations.
January 11, 2016 at 11:45 PM

Alberto said…
David, I basically agree with you analysis. I’ve always stated that R1a-Z93 (and even more this Z94 sample from Poltavka) is the strongest evidence we have of any migration from Europe to South Asia. The autosomal and archaeological evidence is, on the other hand, dubious (for example, no matter what qpAdm says, I think that modeling the Kalash as 70% Sinthashta is way off. Anything between 0% and 10% looks more likely to me).

But I also fully subscribe what Rob said above. All of it. This matter is nothing personal that affects modern people. It’s a fascinating historical event, nothing more. It already happened, whatever happened. 4000 years ago. It won’t change the present; it already did.

But also about the complete lack of S-C Asian ancient DNA. We need those (BMAC and earlier especially) to really know what and how it happened. I’m one of those who thinks that R1a has an Asian origin (and here I’m not going against the mainstream, just check Wikipedia, or Underhill et al, or any objective opinion). So while Z93 (if indeed age estimates are correct, which is another big if), looks to have appeared in the steppe first, M417 might not. So with Z93 we could be seeing a back migration of R1a people to their homeland (you know, like the IE legend of the hero who goes to far away lands and after completing some tasks he returns back home 🙂

The Rakhigarhi samples will be very interesting, especially if we do get autosomal data. I’ve already stated that I expect mostly continuity with modern population (to a reasonable degree, they’re 4500 years apart): a lot of ANI and some unknown amount of ASI (or nothing at all?). For haplogroups, J2 certainly looks likely, but I wouldn’t rule out others present today (R1 and R2 included).BTW, what’s your take on R2? Do you think it’s native to Eastern Europe too?
January 12, 2016 at 2:12 AM

Davidski said…
Well you don’t sound very convincing pointing to Underhill or Wikipedia as sources about R1a. My view is that R2 will be found in ancient Central Asian remains. But it’s not a widespread lineage today, and it probably never was, because it doesn’t appear to be associated with any major expansions. So it’s very unlikely that the populations that carried it in prehistoric times had any major autosomal impact on present-day Eurasians.
January 12, 2016 at 2:31 AM

Ryan said…
Some of those ghost populations may have made interesting contributions. BMAC? Have you tried running Treemix with various HG populations? If an excess of HG ancestry is what makes this guy an outlier, it would be good to know where exactly that ancestry seems to be coming from. WHG ancestry would be no less strange than Iberian Neolithic DNA really.
January 12, 2016 at 2:39 AM

Davidski said…
WHG ancestry would be no less strange than Iberian Neolithic DNA really. Why’s that? KO1 from Hungary is a pure WHG, and the steppe actually extends into Hungary.
January 12, 2016 at 2:45 AM

coldmountains said…
As Z93 carrier i am just amused by this people who still think Z93 is from Iran or South Asia . Seriously it is pathetic to deny the steppe origin of it. Anyways there are still many mysteries about Proto-Indo-Iranians and Z93.
January 12, 2016 at 9:26 AM

Ryan said…
@Davidski – That’s a good point. So perhaps an origin around the mouth of the Danube? If WHG extended that far east though, I wouldn’t be surprised if they could have had R1b among them too, which would put a wrench in some of your views about the main clades of R1b being exclusive to PIE.
January 12, 2016 at 9:27 AM

Fanty said…
„If WHG extended that far east” The highest amount of WHG autosomal DNA is in the Baltic states. Also generally „WHG” anchestry is the highest, generally in the NorthEAST of Europe. Including Russia. The highest amount of the Y-DNA connected to WHG is in the Balkan and the UKRAINE, aswell as in all Slavic nations (Czechia, Poland, Russia etc… all relatively high in it) in general. A single Yamna guy had a „WHG” Y-DNA (Though we actually found farmers (In Hungary) with that Y-DNA already). I am pretty sure WHGs lived in what is now Baltic countries and Poland and I personaly even imagine the west of the Ukraine beeing WHG, rather than WHG terretory aswell.
January 12, 2016 at 10:44 AM

Ryan said…
„If WHG extended that far east” Fanty – I’m saying WHG as opposed to EHG or SHG. If the WHG/EHG distinction is false, then again, that calls into question any talk of R1b being exclusive to PIE, as that may just be a more eastern-distributed WHG marker rather than exclusive to EHG.
January 12, 2016 at 11:24 AM

Davidski said…
Alberto is right that Modern Y DNA points toward Iran as the origin of M417. No, he’s wrong. He doesn’t understand the structure of R1a, and I guess neither do you. It’s a simple argument: all of the main clades of R1a-M417 are found in Europe, and don’t need massive samples to be found there. Asia is dominated by Z93 and missing L664. Europe is also the home of EHG, which is associated with R1. EHG is not native to any part of Asia except maybe Western Siberia. It’s time to to move on now. A lot of people are treading water hoping to see things that are already impossible. It’s a waste of time and energy.
January 12, 2016 at 4:06 PM

Davidski said…
EHG doesn’t appear to be the product of recent mixture. At this stage, it looks more like ancient pre-East Asian North Eurasians were part of a cline from Bichon in the west to MA1 in the east. And I don’t think it can be said with certainty that EHG was in Hungary before CHG. I think it’s more likely that steppe populations close to East Central Europe had very low levels of CHG initially, and Bronze Age Hungarians received most of their eastern admixture from this population.
January 13, 2016 at 12:23 AM

Davidski said…
Abashevo, Potapovka and Sintashta people weren’t peaceful pastoralists looking for new grasslands. They were highly militaristic groups that fought battles resulting in mass graves of young combatants, buried their important dead with loads of military gear, built sophisticated fortifications, and practiced somewhat bizarre and perhaps violent rituals, which involved cutting off the heads of people and replacing them with horse heads. These are the people who carried early lineages of R1a-Z93 on the steppe. So we are to believe now that when they got to India they became peaceful pastoralists? Please kindly pull your head out of your ass Kurti.
January 13, 2016 at 5:32 PM

Davidski said…
Maju, You know what, you might be right. All of the ancient R1a in Eastern Europe is probably from South Asia. The Eastern hunter-gatherers, Khvalynsk people, and the Bronze Age steppe nomads carrying R1a were all fresh migrants from South Asia. And obviously Indo-European languages spread in the opposite direction with pigeon post and stuff.
January 13, 2016 at 5:38 PM

Rob said…
@ Davidski „They were highly militaristic groups that fought battles resulting in mass graves of young combatants, buried their important dead with loads of military gear, built sophisticated fortifications, and practiced somewhat bizarre and perhaps violent rituals, which involved cutting off the heads of people and replacing them with horse heads.”

That’s certainly true. Even if one adds that part of this display is symbolic, there ‚s little point denying that they were a militarized caste, even if their primary occupation was (apparently low-level) metalwork. The only question which remains is whether the data from Sintastha can be extrapolated to all central Eurasia & beyond. But I imagine if they were to wish to invade other lands, these hardy folk working in mines their whole lives, with chariots, good metal weapons, would be tough to defend against
January 13, 2016 at 5:58 PM

a said…
„Madhu, and the related terms mad (मद, مد) and madira (मदिरा, مدِرا), also mean alcohol.[1][2] These words are all derived from the Sanskrit language, and are Indo-European cognates of the English mead, Greek μέθυ, Avestan madu, Persian may,[3] Latvian and Lithuanian medus, German Met and Old Church Slavonic ] мєдъ (medŭ).”
January 13, 2016 at 6:31 PM

„The Georgian word goes back to Proto-Kartvelian *ɣwino-,[42] which is generally believed to be a borrowing from Proto-Indo-European.[42][43][44][45][46][47] Another hypothesis is that the lexeme was borrowed from Proto-Armenian *ɣʷeinyo-,……………..[48][49][50]”
January 13, 2016 at 6:35 PM

a said…
„The Ossetians or Ossetes (Ossetian: ир, ирæттæ, ir, irættæ; дигорæ, дигорæнттæ, digoræ, digorænttæ) are an Iranian ethnic group of the Caucasus Mountains, indigenous to the region known as Ossetia.[12][13][14] They speak Ossetic, an Iranian language of the Eastern branch of the Indo-European languages family, …….”

@4:11 Ossetians>>> Kakhetian=R1b-L584
January 13, 2016 at 6:42 PM

Krefter said…
@Davidski,Sure, you’re right about R1a-M417, militaristic aspect Bronze age Z93-groups, etc, but cut down on the „Z93 conquest of South Asia”. You’re writing about South Asian genetics as an excuse to say „We East Europeans conquered you, and graciously after killing your men planted our R1a seed into your region.” That’s probably for the most part true, but don’t exaggerate to degrade or upgrade anyone.

@Maju,You’re asking a legitimate question. So far 100% of Ancient Steppe R1a-Z93 has turned out R1a1a1b2a2-Z2121. Even two Samartians and a Sycthian had R1a1a1b2a2-Z2121. No one has done analysis of the Poltvka Outlier. All we know is that he had R1a1a1b2a-Z94.

Anyways, Maju the loads of M417* in Corded Ware, and examples of L664 and Z284 in Corded Ware, confirm to me M417 originated in East Europe with Corded Ware/Sintashta-types. Every modern M417 basal clade and even extinct basal M417 clades have been recorded in Corded Ware/his brothers further East.

Modern Y DNA isn’t always reliable. Especially when a lineage expanded in a short time period like R1b-L11/R1a-M417 did and when their homeland(„Steppe”, Ukraine-Russia, mostly around Black Sea) has faced several replacement events since 2500 BC(proto-Indo Iranians, Finno-Urgics, Turks, Slavs).

BTW, over 50% of R1b-P312 in East Europe(Russia, BeloRussia, Ukraine, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary) is R1b-P312(xL21, U152). Chances are they aren’t DF27 either. IMO, they are P312 bread crumbs tracing back to P312’s birthplace near the Black Sea.
January 13, 2016 at 7:42 PM

Davidski said…
It is a fact that Z93 does not exist (nor seemingly has ever existed) further West than the Volga. Very funny, but there’s Z93* in Poland. It’s likely that we’ll soon see very basal and very relevant Z93 in ancient remains from Ukraine. I’m guessing you’re sharing the same drinking tap as poor Nirjhar, because you both sound just as crazy. Must be something in that water.
January 13, 2016 at 8:19 PM

Davidski said…
Somehow you have to face this problem. There’s no problem. There’s just you with your insane religious-like faith.
Z93 obviously spread from north to south. The spread of Z93 into Asia fits the Kurgan expansion model. There was not a single case of Z93 recorded in Eastern hunter-gatherers, Khvalynsk or Yamnaya from the Volga region. The first case of it there is with the Poltavka outlier. So your crappy theory that Z93 is native to the Volga region since the Neolithic looks about as plausible as your crappy theory that it’s native to Asia.
January 13, 2016 at 10:49 PM

Coldmountains said…
@Rami Do you live in some parallel universe? Just read Rig veda where Indra is praised as destroyer of forts(cities). There is almost nothing in archaic rig veda which points to a sedentary, urban and peaceful society of early Aryans. They were not really less violent than mongols or turks later but they were more succesful in replacing the local languages and to some extent local Y-DNA and autosomsal dna. The Dasa of Rig veda are actually the proto-Urban BMAC people and it seems that they were frequently at war with this people
January 14, 2016 at 3:40 AM

George Okromchedlishvili said…
Indo-Aryans were savage, illiterate, blood thirsty nomads that hailed in warfare. Pretty much the European version of Turks. Why’s this so hard to accept?
January 14, 2016 at 3:49 AM

Davidski said…
@Romulus Sredny Stog was Indo-Europeanized by Males from the Balkan Neolithic. You’re not making any sense. There’s plenty of linguistic and genetic evidence now that early European farmers weren’t Indo-Europeans. Substrate words related to farming in modern European languages originate from around the Aegean and are clearly non-Indo-European.http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2015/10/linguistics-archeology-and-genetics-l-g.html
January 16, 2016 at 4:10 PM

Davidski said…
Let me know when the first major paper comes out supporting it. It’ll be interesting to see how they explain that all of the Y-DNA in early Kurgan graves is EHG derived.
January 16, 2016 at 6:20 PM

Arch Hades said…
That „Meditteranean” component in Sredny Stog is CHG and comes from the Caucasus , it’s not ENF. There’s no ENF in the steppe until the CWC expands out east much later in time.
January 16, 2016 at 7:06 PM

Davidski said…
Can’t see Tripolje as anything but EEF, possibly with a high level of WHG admix. Tripolje mixed with Sredny Stog on the western edge of the steppe in Ukraine. Caucasus-derived groups probably mixed with Sredny Stog near the Sea of Azov. So it’ likely that Sredny Stog had EEF admixture in the west, and CHG admixture in the east. Poltavka outlier may actually pre-date the formation of Corded Ware, and might be a hint of what we’ll soon see from remains on the Ukrainian steppes. In other words, EHG/CHG/EEF/WHG mixed groups with loads of R1a.
January 16, 2016 at 7:37 PM

Davidski said…
Romulus, I don’t know whether Mal’ta boy was brachycephalic or not, but most of the EHG skulls I’ve seen don’t look brachycephalic. And it was EHG that carried R1a, not Mal’ta boy, who may have belonged to an offshoot of ANE and R that didn’t leave any modern descendants. Your theories are weak and stupid.
January 16, 2016 at 10:31 PM

Davidski said…
the idea that skull shape can change based on diet is a hoax, if eat a lot of rice am I going to start looking Chinese? get real. Straw man argument. Head shape can change from generation to generation, not within someone’s lifetime you complete moron. Can you prove these are hoaxes?

Brachycephalization and debrachycephalization in Bulgaria during 20th century

Davidski said…
Ainus are dolichocephalic, and so were paleo-Aleuts. I’m sure I could find more examples within the so called Mongoloid family that I’m not aware of yet. And yes, Ainus are East Asian, and so were the Jomon.

So you’ve failed to prove that Mal’ta boy was brachycephalic, or that it’s even relevant, considering my examples of dolichocephalic East Asian/ANE populations like Eskimos and Aleuts. Also, there’s no evidence that Bell Beakers were by and large brachycephalic. All we know is that some were, and this was a big deal in the past. It’s no longer a big deal.

Rob said…
* RE: Samara , Khvalynsk and „Kurgans” „Sredny-Stog II I agree that it has low meaning because there’s a wild variety of cultures or subcultures partaking of the layer. What is clear and relevant is that it included the earliest kurgans in the area and that it was an almost necessary stepping stone for developments further West such as Baalberge and Cernavoda”

That’s not quite correct, because you’re just lumping together everything into one category. We need to sub-classify different types of Kurgans, and treatment of body position. Somewhat different conclusiosn come to the fore. True, low mounds and stone cairns can be found as early as Late Neolithic/ early Eneolithic areas of southern Russia and Ukraine. But there is no proof that the began in the Samara culture specifically, rather they were spread across the area, incl post-Mariupol areas of Azov, Dneper, Donets, etc. In fact, „It has been noted that the earliest “symbolic period” in the development of steppe monumental architectureis limited to a steppe zone between the Northern Caucasus and the Balkan-Carpathians (Rassamakin 2002,p. 60-63). The emergence of these constructions is infuenced by external impulses. The first one is connected to the development of the Balkan-Carpathian metallurgical province (Chernykh et al. 1991) and the shaping of an exchange system of prestige goods. The second one is connected to the new Pre-Maikop cultural system (settlements of Svobodnoe, Meshoko, etc.) of the Northern Caucasus. The steppe populations represented by elite burials were involved in this exchange network of prestige goods (Rassamakin 1999, p. 97-112). The emergence of individual burials with prestigious grave goods and the appearance of ritual constructions in the steppe zone between the Northern Caucasus and the Carpathian-Danube region resulted from the development of a new economic and social “world system”. They illustrate the response of a certain stratum of the early pastoral population to its first contacts with early agricultural societies. This process resulted in changes in the spiritual life of the steppe population (initially elite groups only?) and the development of a new funerary tradition.”

So Samara, Volga, etc, was peripheral to all this, as the aDNA evidence (if you’ve been keeping up) confirms.

(2) there is then a kurganles period on the steppe (were you aware?). 4200 – 3800 BC, burials on the steppe are only in flat pits. Probably related to the demise of the CBMP to which the steppe chiefs relied on.

(3) When they re-appear again (3800 BC), under the Kurgans were 4 different positions: 1 – extended supine position (with straight legs); 2 – supine with legs
flexed in various ways including sessile and disarticulated orientations, characteristic of flat cemeteries; 3 – flexed position on the side, with one arm bent and the other extended, or with both arms extended toward the knees; 4 – strongly flexed position on the side with bent arms and hands in front of the face

(4) By the Yamnaya period (33/3000 BC), there is a homogenization of burial treatment. Again, the major formative influences on the rites are from CT and Majkop.

What we see, after a careful, up to date analysis, is actually a very different picture to what you describe. It appears that the steppe was constantly subject to influences, if not movements from its agricultural surrounds. True, sometime c. 3000 BC these steppe groups might then have ‚refluxed’ back out. But that remains to be proven. In fact, I very much doubt it. By 2500 BC, Yamnaya was collapsing, and the succeeding Catacomb culture was restricted to the Dnieperian heartlands. Perhaps a stray L51 group fled westward to gain a foothold in BB territory, to ‚suddenly explode’ in dominance of western Europe (as the current narrative espoused by most genealogy enthusiasts would go).
January 17, 2016 at 7:18 PM

Rob said…
@ Maju „Yamna is succeeded by Poltavka in its core area of the Volga. There seems to be surprising continuity in this core area: Khvalynsk → Yamna → Poltavka → Srubna (arguably proto-Cimmerians) and Sintashta→Andronovo (proto-Indo-Iranians). ”

Maju, do you call a whole-scale replacement of Yamnaya R1b- Z2013 to Srubnaya R1a -Z93 „continuity” ?
January 18, 2016 at 2:50 AM

Davidski said…
Y-chromosomes of ruling elites, which is what the people buried in the Kurgans arguably were, may have changed when ruling clans were deposed by other local clans. But in the case of the shift from Yamnaya/Poltavka to Srubnaya, it’s not just a change in Y-chromosomes. The Srubnaya people were a new, genetically more western population in the Volga area, which probably already arrived during the Poltavka period, because Poltavka outlier was of the same genetic type as Srubnaya. They probably came from the western part or edge of the steppe or forest steppe, bringing with them R1a-Z93 and admixture from Middle Neolithic European farmers who lived west of the steppe. I don’t think Maju has looked into this. He doesn’t seem to be aware of it.
January 18, 2016 at 3:00 AM

Rob said…
Maju, I referenced you the paper twice and it seemed like you were refusing to accept the details. Im not trying to slant a particular view, but sharing minutii. Thus to earn pedagogism, one needs to show receptism. I suggest a good starting point is „The Eneolithic of the Black Sea steppe. Dynamics of Cultural Development 4500 – 2300 BC, by Rassamakin. Just look it up on google or Academia.edu, or else ‚ll happily email it to you. Yes, I think he’s new classification scheme is good, and after all, he is centred in Ukraine and is best familar with the material. he also covers the more eastern continuum – Repin, Khvalynsk, etc.

And no, Im not suggesting kurgan culture started from CT. Quite the contrary, im painting a picture of different funerary rituals which varied with time and space. Some of which were directly and or indirectly influenced by exchange with CT, some with Majkop, whilst others still go back to more archaic ‚native’ steppe forms. What we have by 3300 BC is a number of variant kurgan cultures. Some (like Cernavoda, Usatavo) appear to have been balkano-Danubian groups adapting to steppic type burials and pastorlaism. By 3000 BC, it all homogenizes into „classic Yamnaya”. Was this simply a cultural phenomenon, or was it because one specific subgroup grew to dominance over others ? We don;t yet know, but aDNA will help. So we need aDNA from al lthese Yamnaya-esque groups west of the Don- Black Sea yamnaya, Majkop-Yamnaya, balkan Yamnaya, Hungarian Yamnaya 🙂 Of course, we know DOn-Volga Yamnaya was almost wholly Z2103 clan.
January 18, 2016 at 5:25 AM